CTC Forum - On the road

mjr wrote:TonyR wrote:I've discussed it on another list with one of the main proponents. Having lobbied for it and then seen what was designed they discovered they didn't have enough political power/influence to change it. At that point they should have said NO to what was being offered but instead accepted it as the best they could get.Sorry to keep doing this, but prove it: who, on what list, when and is it visible online?

Also, what evidence is there that saying "NO" would have stopped it? I've pulled that move elsewhere and sometimes it has and sometimes it hasn't.

Its on a subscription list, not a public one and I am not going to betray people's trust by publishing their contributions to a closed debate. You're just going to have to believe me or not. As to the NO evidence, since campaigners lobbied local authorities to do it and several were quite reluctant I would think saying NO would have had an effect but there is no way of knowing whether "we've started so we must finish" momentum would have seen it continue.

mjr wrote:TonyR wrote:Guildford St only helps for the eastern most section. Beyond that you have to navigate Russell Square and then thread your way through back streets to get to TCR. A slow and awkward journey.It's one straight road from Russell Square to TCR (Montague Place, Bedford Square, Bayley Street). OK, there's been building works near the museum for ages and there's traffic lights, but there's traffic lights on Torrington Place too.

Well first you've got to get out of Guildford Street and round Russell Square - not the most cycling friendly set of junctions. Then you do the lovely straight on when everything else is turning left ride at the cars waiting in Bedford Square before swerving at the last minute onto the gravel pavement of the cycle path (pictured). And then off again at the other end just at the point cars coming the other way are swerving towards you to overtake the parked cars. A true mess of a journey but on the bright side at least the redone Montague Place is not as bad as what was there before.

Screen Shot 2015-02-09 at 12.32.03.png

That arrow to the left is the instructions to cyclists on where to go next.

But the good news is that, like evolution, it's unstoppable. Already the London segregation schemes are starting to filter out, very slowly, to cities elsewhere in Britain.

Trying to win over malcontents on a forum is a fun pastime, I guess, but they've already lost. The London schemes have established the principle of segregation on busy roads as the way forward. The battle is now to spread it further and faster.

fluffybunnyuk wrote:or it will be another useless white elephant that we get blamed for not using

I wouldnt go that far...it will get the avg commuter cyclists who RLJ,filter dangerously,etc etc off some of the busy roads, and onto their own personal 25mph racetrack, where they can dream their winning the TdF. But for people who cycle like me it does not alot.

"people who cycle like me", oh dear. I would read the blog I linked a bit further up

or it will be another useless white elephant that we get blamed for not using

I wouldnt go that far...it will get the avg commuter cyclists who RLJ,filter dangerously,etc etc off some of the busy roads, and onto their own personal 25mph racetrack, where they can dream their winning the TdF. But for people who cycle like me it does not alot. I do think however that an ad campaign needs to be run telling peds about not wandering into and using it for dog walking...or it will become an extended pavement with potential accidents.

TonyR wrote:mjr wrote:TonyR wrote:As we've seen in the pavement cycling thread, with kerbs or walls you should add an extra half meter to the width each way. or use traversable kerbs, but neither was done in Bloomsbury.But I don't think that's what's proposed on the superhighway.Not as far as we know yet, and I feel that's another mistake which has been pointed out by many people... but I think it's still an improvement even without that.

The trouble with the whole Bloomsbury cycleway is that the segregationists wanted a segregated track so badly that when they were offered something far too narrow and with too many problems at the junctions they took the view that anything was better than nothing. Prove it.

I've discussed it on another list with one of the main proponents. Having lobbied for it and then seen what was designed they discovered they didn't have enough political power/influence to change it. At that point they should have said NO to what was being offered but instead accepted it as the best they could get.Sorry to keep doing this, but prove it: who, on what list, when and is it visible online?

Also, what evidence is there that saying "NO" would have stopped it? I've pulled that move elsewhere and sometimes it has and sometimes it hasn't.

Few alternative roads??? It's paralleled by Euston road to the north and Guildford Road to the south which is part of the reason it uses the streets it does, which are hardly ideal for it.

I used to use Tavistock PIace before the cycle track was built but now tend to use Euston Road.In other words, you're using one of the alternatives!!!

Guildford St only helps for the eastern most section. Beyond that you have to navigate Russell Square and then thread your way through back streets to get to TCR. A slow and awkward journey.It's one straight road from Russell Square to TCR (Montague Place, Bedford Square, Bayley Street). OK, there's been building works near the museum for ages and there's traffic lights, but there's traffic lights on Torrington Place too.

In short, I don't believe people are on the cycleway for lack of alternatives. It would be interesting to do an user opinion survey, but I don't have the time to do it... unless anyone would like to pay me?

There are some motorists willing to "physically encourage you" on streets without cycleways too and there were around ULU before that one was built. That's why we need the Road Justice campaign too.And which is why we need to deal with motorists first and foremost. If you can fix that problem with presumed liability and an approach similar to the one that changed drink driving from accepted to unacceptable you would not only make segregated cycling alongside the road unnecessary but you would also open up all roads to everyday cycling in safety - something that can never be achieved by the segregational approach.Can we deal with that first? I think not, because politicians will only make those changes once there are sufficient people cycling regularly to have more political clout than the current 15% does (especially given that a non-trivial chunk seem basically elitist and uninterested in campaigning for wider public cycling, especially if it might mean that they lose any of "their" car-dominated carriageway width on even indirect streets). At 15%, we seem only just able to get non-lethal bare-minimum cycleways!

TonyR wrote:And which is why we need to deal with motorists first and foremost. If you can fix that problem with presumed liability and an approach similar to the one that changed drink driving from accepted to unacceptable you would not only make segregated cycling alongside the road unnecessary but you would also open up all roads to everyday cycling in safety - something that can never be achieved by the segregational approach.

1. If you look at drunk driving injuries in relation to total KSIs its an interesting picture. They track. So have we reduced drunk driving, or have we just reduced total KSIs?

2. So the 6 year old is still going to mix it with the lorries, just when they get squished the lorry driver is at fault automatically. Wohoo!

It's all a matter of evolution isn't it*. London started with blue paint, then had something more segregated and then moving onto this, although I agree superhighway is overstating it. You would hope it would evolve from there. Some here would have nothing done at all and cyclists kept in their place so motor vehicles can continue their reign.

*I don't know why we seem determined to go through the evolution process when we could shortcut it as others have done it before.

fluffybunnyuk wrote:I think the design test for infrastructure should be would you let an 8 year old use it.

I actually think the thing that has done most for cycling in London has been the Boris Bikes. You see people of all types (not generally 8 year olds I will admit as the bikes are too big for most) wobbling along the roads of London. Accidents have been very few and only one fatality AFAIK in many tens of millions of journeys. It makes cycling in London seem possible for ordinary people and motor traffic tends to give them a cautious wide berth because the riders are seen as inexperienced and unpredictable (although many are anything but)

mjr wrote:TonyR wrote:As we've seen in the pavement cycling thread, with kerbs or walls you should add an extra half meter to the width each way. or use traversable kerbs, but neither was done in Bloomsbury.

But I don't think that's what's proposed on the superhighway.

The trouble with the whole Bloomsbury cycleway is that the segregationists wanted a segregated track so badly that when they were offered something far too narrow and with too many problems at the junctions they took the view that anything was better than nothing. Prove it.

I've discussed it on another list with one of the main proponents. Having lobbied for it and then seen what was designed they discovered they didn't have enough political power/influence to change it. At that point they should have said NO to what was being offered but instead accepted it as the best they could get.

The reason its so widely used is there are few alternative roads and if you try cycling on the road alongside there are plenty of motorists willing to physically encourage you to use the cycle track. Personally I avoid it but fortunately I don't need to go that way too often.Few alternative roads??? It's paralleled by Euston road to the north and Guildford Road to the south which is part of the reason it uses the streets it does, which are hardly ideal for it.

I used to use Tavistock PIace before the cycle track was built but now tend to use Euston Road. Cycling in the bus lane though with taxis, buses and motorbikes and with vehicle cutting across you to turn left would not be most people's choice. And there are a couple of nasty junctions - the ones at Gt Portland St and the one with TCR - that need a level of confidence and assertiveness most cyclists won't have. Having said that a fair few do use it. Guildford St only helps for the eastern most section. Beyond that you have to navigate Russell Square and then thread your way through back streets to get to TCR. A slow and awkward journey.

There are some motorists willing to "physically encourage you" on streets without cycleways too and there were around ULU before that one was built. That's why we need the Road Justice campaign too.

And which is why we need to deal with motorists first and foremost. If you can fix that problem with presumed liability and an approach similar to the one that changed drink driving from accepted to unacceptable you would not only make segregated cycling alongside the road unnecessary but you would also open up all roads to everyday cycling in safety - something that can never be achieved by the segregational approach.

TonyR wrote:As we've seen in the pavement cycling thread, with kerbs or walls you should add an extra half meter to the width each way. or use traversable kerbs, but neither was done in Bloomsbury. The trouble with the whole Bloomsbury cycleway is that the segregationists wanted a segregated track so badly that when they were offered something far too narrow and with too many problems at the junctions they took the view that anything was better than nothing. Prove it. I think it was more of a problem that the local MP opposed it and the local council was restructured part way through in a way replacing a cycling supporter with some lukewarms who were keen to compromise the scheme, as described by Vole O' speed.The reason its so widely used is there are few alternative roads and if you try cycling on the road alongside there are plenty of motorists willing to physically encourage you to use the cycle track. Personally I avoid it but fortunately I don't need to go that way too often.Few alternative roads??? It's paralleled by Euston road to the north and Guildford Road to the south which is part of the reason it uses the streets it does, which are hardly ideal for it.

There are some motorists willing to "physically encourage you" on streets without cycleways too and there were around ULU before that one was built. That's why we need the Road Justice campaign too.

I think the design test for infrastructure should be would you let an 8 year old use it. Running North south from Kings Cross to ele&castle is a nice idea but it stops and starts in 2 very heavy traffic/dangerous places. Plus most people dont actually live in the center of london, so it doesnt go anywhere worth going. For example it takes me some riding on the A2 to get there, and then im supposed to take it north to kings cross...unfortunately its just easier to cycle over to tower bridge direction, and cross at a point near there, and meander through the back streets to kings cross.As for the poor 8 year old...Where would they be going to use such infrastructure?Now if it was from the elephant and castle to say lewisham, then i can see a use for it, with local people pootling back n forward on it shopping, visiting friends etc. My problem is that its just aimed solely at the commuter as in those are the only people who cycle in london apparently. If i consider all my journeys last year into central london , and factor in me wanting to deviate to make use of it then it probably comes to 4 out of 50 journeys.As for ele&castle to someplace else well my borough doesnt seem to recognise things on 2 wheels. So im not entirely sure how it persuades anyone in the borough to get on their bike.While segregation can be useful, what would be more useful is passing a law that states the motorist by default is at fault if contact is made with a bicycle unless proven otherwise. That would overnight revolutionise cycling in london, and persuade all types of people out on a bike.

TonyR wrote:honesty wrote:I'm not. I'm asking you to clarify your statement. Explain how "control traffic so that a six year old can cycle" is not having said 6 year old cycle in the same road as the 20 tonne truck?

Well if you can't work that one out..........

That doesn't work for me. Sorry. State your position. Tell me what you mean and stop side stepping. All you seem to be doing is denigrating the new segregated routes without giving your idea of how you would increase cycling from 2% nationwide...

Actually rereading... You seem to have poo pooed the superhighways because their design is poor, and other off road cycleways because you say they are poorly done and dangerous. You've even came up with your own clever name (insult) for people who may argue for segregation. Cant see you offering an alternative though.

aspiringcyclist wrote:I agree that the restricting to 3m is definitely not something we want and it seems to be pandering to unsubstantiated worries. Tavistock Pl is certainly far too narrow ( don't think it is even 2m wide ), however, despite this, it still remains a very popular route, showing how much people prefer segregation

And remember those are widths for a two way cycle track so one way its between 1m and 1.4m. And as well as being narrow with lots of problem junctions it has gems like this built into it.

aspiringcyclist wrote:Sorry the post was directed to TonyR. Another problem with Tavistock place and the superhighway are the unforgiving kerbs, decreasing the usable width.

As we've seen in the pavement cycling thread, with kerbs or walls you should add an extra half meter to the width each way. The trouble with the whole Bloomsbury cycleway is that the segregationists wanted a segregated track so badly that when they were offered something far too narrow and with too many problems at the junctions they took the view that anything was better than nothing.

The reason its so widely used is there are few alternative roads and if you try cycling on the road alongside there are plenty of motorists willing to physically encourage you to use the cycle track. Personally I avoid it but fortunately I don't need to go that way too often.